1 Expectations vs. Reality in the Romantic Comedy ​ (500) Days of Summer “This is not a love story.” So ends the prelude to Marc Webb’s 2009 film, (500) Days of Summer, a movie ​ ​ [1] universally categorized ​ as a romantic comedy, i.e. a type of love story. This poses a ​ problem to the attentive viewer: he or she has been sold a romance that explicitly states that it is not a romance. How can the viewer’s understanding of the film coincide with such an unambiguous statement to the contrary? This question is an important one for the viewer, but it extends into the narrative of the film as well. The protagonist, Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) believes that he is living a Hollywood love story, and that Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) is “the one.” But his belief flies in the face of multiple conversations with Summer herself, who is clear about her lack of long-term interest in him. The question arises for Tom and viewer alike: how can their interpretations persist when reality opposes them so patently? For Tom, the answer lies in his ability to only perceive his relationship with Summer as he wishes it was, not as it truly is. He knows what Summer has said, but what she does is just ambiguous enough to fuel an ​ ​ ​ ​ unrealistic fantasy of what the two of them could be. The fantasy proves too enticing for Tom to avoid, and he is eventually crushed when Summer’s breakup brings him crashing back to reality. 2 For the viewer, the reading of the film as a love story in the rom-com tradition persists in spite of evidence to the contrary for several reasons. First, Webb aligns the narration strongly with the delusional Tom, so the viewer is more likely to respond to his emotions than any rational surveying of the situation. Second, he plays with romantic comedy conventions endlessly in the film, conventions whose familiarity draws the viewer into the same false assumptions about the relationship that Tom believes. Through the use of these genre traits and the narrative’s nonlinear framing, Webb creates an interesting and plausible rom-com story arc for the film, but ultimately still subverts genre expectations, rather than realizes them: Tom’s misinterpretations and assumptions about his relationship with Summer end in crippling heartbreak. The viewer also feels this pain, as the unfulfilled anticipation of a romantic ‘happily-ever-after’ creates resentment and disappointment when compared to a more traditional romantic comedy. Through the motif of optimistic expectations clashing with a pessimistic reality, Webb achieves three things in the film. One, he creates a compelling narrative out of a well-worn story of love lost. Two, he demonstrates the consequences of Tom’s selfishness through the painful breakup that comes as a result, while poking fun at the genre in which many of his actions and assumptions are condoned. Three, he uses genre conventions to pull the viewer into the same delusions that Tom has about his relationship with Summer, thereby creating and undermining audience expectations for the film itself. Thus, Webb makes (500) Days of Summer an interesting and ​ ​ self-conscious romantic comedy. 3 How the 500 Days are Structured One of the most crucial elements to both making (500) Days of Summer succeed ​ ​ narratively and creating the conflict between expectations and reality is the film’s structure, which is best understood as 44 scenes, split into four acts with a short [2] prelude preceding them. ​ Despite the nonlinear presentation of the scenes within ​ them, the four acts each work together to give Tom and Summer’s relationship an understandable arc. The first act presents the origins of the relationship, the second- its progression, the third- its deterioration, and lastly- its denouement and the final indication that Tom is ready to move on. The act breaks are not necessarily evident upon first viewing because the vignettes and flashbacks (each marked as one of the 500 days) will sometimes jump more than a year into the future or past. By dividing the film in the manner described however, it is evident that there is a unity to the scenes within each act, allowing them to illustrate and explore a specific period within the greater relationship. The following is a breakdown of the act structure, scene by scene: 4 Prelude – Narrative Introduction 1. Author’s note 2. “This is a story of boy meets girl” 3. Opening Credits – Home Videos Act I – The Conception of the Relationship 4. Breaking plates/Rachel consoles Tom 5. Love at first sight 6. Narration & introduction of Summer 7. “I hear she’s a bitch”/Smiths in the elevator ​ 8. Millie’s engagement party/ Summer and Tom get introduced 9. Officially loving Summer montage 10. Wii tennis with Rachel 11. Pac-Man in the café – “Things are off with Summer” 12. Karaoke with the whole office ​ ​ 13. Copy-room kiss / “Jobs” discussion Act II – The Development of the Relationship | Retrospective Optimism 14. Bad Ikea (Day 282) / Good Ikea (Day 34) ​ ​ 15. Tom’s bedroom 16. Hall and Oates musical interlude 17. New Receptionist / Getting over Summer 18. “Ringo is my favorite Beatle” and shower sex 19. Talking about Architecture in LA 20. Talking in Summer’s apartment / “Everything changed for Tom that night” 21. More Pac-man in the café, discussing dating 22. Soccer game - Asks Rachel about “boyfriend/girlfriend” labels 23. Tom asks Summer “what are we?” 24. Fight in the bar and fallout 25. To call or not to call / Summer comes back ​ 26. Flashbacks about Summer’s exes 27. The “penis” game 5 Act III – The Downfall of the Relationship | Retroactive Pessimism 29. Art gallery and going to the movies 30. Tom at movie alone / Seventh Seal dream 31. Tom’s problems at the office 32. Montage of Summer inspiring Tom’s greeting cards 33. Officially hating Summer montage 34. Blind date gone awry 34. Millie’s wedding with Summer 35. Interlude about love 36. Rooftop party with Expectations/Reality ​ 37. Twinkies and bourbon montage 38. Weekly meeting about new cards/Anti-love speech 39. Meeting with Rachel at soccer 40. “Look back on the bad stuff ” montage Act IV – Conclusion of the Relationship | A New Season Begins 41. Fruitless architecture job search / Summer’s marriage montage 42. Meeting at the bench 43. Interview / Meeting Autumn 44. End Credits In the above segmentation of film’s plot, all scenes which depict Tom and Summer’s relationship in a positive light have been marked in blue ink and the scenes which depict it in a negative light, red. By color coding the narrative, it becomes clear that director Marc Webb and screenwriters Michael Weber and Scott Neustadter offset every sequence’s emotional tone by following it with one which opposes it. By examining the sequences’ placement within the act structure, the counteracting sequences are grouped into self-contained couplets (bracketed above,) that are useful 6 guides to examining the film’s editing. The couplets demonstrate a boom and bust cycle of emotions, which repeats throughout the film, giving the editing a perceptible rhythm. This rhythm in the scene arrangement is one of the key methods that Webb uses to keep ensure audience comprehension while jump-cutting through time so drastically. The structure also sets (500) Days of Summer apart from the majority of movies ​ ​ with a romantic storyline: were the sequences from Tom and Summer’s relationship to be shown in chronological order, they would make a perfect gradient, going from blue to red. But by taking them out of order and imposing a pattern on them, Webb, Neustadter, and Weber tell a familiar story in a way that is both interesting and understandable. A.O. Scott describes the arrangement as “teasing and ingeniously structured” and claims that it “restores a measure of the suspense that is usually missing from the romantic-comedy” (Scott, 2009, E12.) Distinguishing the film from the average rom-com was also one of Webb’s major goals as director. In an interview with Vulture after the film’s premiere, he spoke disparagingly of rom-coms which “don’t feel like they’re real” and said he hoped to make (500) Days of Summer about ​ ​ those “ambiguous relationships… that really help you grow and define you in a certain way” (Hill, 2009, NP.) Many viewers and critics believe that Webb succeeds in this goal, including critic Roger Ebert, who praises the nonlinear plot construction as mirroring of the way that people retroactively perceive relationships. “We never remember in chronological order, especially we’re going back over a failed romance” (Ebert, 2009, D7.) 7 Webb, Neustadter, and Weber’s structuring of the plot is uncommon for a reason: it runs the risk of confusing audiences who generally expect films to present pieces of the story in sequential order. According to film scholar V.F. Perkins, audiences have expectations about how a film functions when watching it, which are based on a mixture of presuppositions and indicators given in the film itself. He writes that when these expectations are subverted, it can either create a deeper meaning for the work, or simply destroy the film’s coherence (Perkins, 1972, 62.) Webb ensures (500) Days of Summer’s congruity by establishing the pattern of rising and falling ​ romantic hopes early in the film through the sequence couplets. The rhythm quickly becomes familiar to audiences and thus maintains coherence according to Perkins’ theory by being consistent not to general expectations for cinema, but to the rules that Webb establishes within the film itself. Perkins’ theory of creating deeper meaning by subverting audience expectations will be examined to a greater degree in the “Creating and Subverting Audience Expectations” section.